Day: July 7, 2015

Many people, including mental health professionals, see how severe psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, can be and instantaneously presume it is mostly biological. Now, most do believe in the value of talk therapy, and it is widely recognized that schizophrenia often starts with a stressful trigger. These triggers can include things as normal as a first year of college or as terrible as a trauma such as a sexual assault. Now, I’m not doubting genetic factors or other biological factors exist in those of us with psychotic disorders, but I have a pet theory on what these disorders are. While, I admit the following is more of a personal opinion than science. I, also, doubt it would be considered complete pseudoscience.

I think it is at least possible that mental disorders are an over reaction to stimuli. (There has been scientific discussion on this.) For example, it is normal to be anxious about an exam. It is not normal to have a panic attack over an exam if one is well prepared. Still, people see psychotic disorders, and think psychosis is so strange it has to be an exceptional case. Well, maybe it is not so different. People without psychotic disorders do have hallucinations on occasion. For example, a person who is sure they heard their phone ring when it wasn’t, in fact, ringing. Now, this doesn’t rise to the level where most people would be bothered, and, yes, people with psychotic disorders have a greater level and frequency of these hallucinations.

In earlier times, certain aspects of mental issues (notice not I didn’t say disorder) were probably more beneficial than they are today. Think about anxiousness. It might be good to be anxious when someone thought they heard footsteps at night. It could have been a dangerous animal. Even, if someone gets anxious half a dozen times when there isn’t a good reason, the fact that this person is on edge might help them realize a real threat with greater frequency. It is better to be wrongly anxious half a dozen times, than wrong about a deadly threat once. Similarly, it might be good to be wrong about, actually, hearing a growling bear a few times and then, always be on the look out and be right once. This is especially true if the person has some previous experience where they felt at risk (stressor.) Now that there person has previously experienced a terrible event, there mind is on the look out.

Now, I am not suggesting that in ancient times mental disorders were a good thing. I’m saying what any mental health professional will tell anyone. We all have aspects of mental disorders. We all can get too anxious sometimes. We all can have some hallucinations. Still, some people are so chronically anxious or hallucinate chronically, and these people can’t function normally. My point is this: psychotic people aren’t as different from the norm as people think. Anxiety disorders might be over reactions, and I, personally, think we shouldn’t look at psychotic disorders any differently.

I, highly, doubt most of what I have said about anxiety is that far away from what a lot of people in psychology say about it, but it has been my experience that as soon as someone says something about psychosis people back away. They can’t see how psychosis could work the same way. Well, I disagree.

Like this:

There have been many refutations of the Christian creation story via science. Evolution through natural selection science supreme in explaining how species have come to be what they are currently. We now know the age of the Earth. We know the age of the universe, and we know the Big Bang occurred and brought about the existence of our universe. That being said, there are still important questions, related to existence, that remain. However, it is exceedingly unlikely, in this day and age, that the Biblical teachings on creation will ever be proven to be a better explanation than science we have now. There may be a few corrections in science, and hopefully we will find answers to the questions that remain. Still, the basic features we have now in biology and astrophysics are unlikely to change, so where does this leave the believer?

Well, if the believer thinks the Bible needs to be taken literally, I’m sorry to say the believer is just plain wrong, and no, there beliefs cannot coexist with science. However, some Christians have moved on. Some claim that the creation story was meant to be metaphorical. Of course, this is problematic due church doctrine. Most Christians seem to accept the original sin concept which was based upon Adam and Eve sinning in the garden. In this case, the believer must jump through some mental hoops to get their religion and science to be in agreement. I, for one, am not willing or think it sensible to jump through those hoops.

Finally, there are believers who see their scriptures as not literal or inerrant. They see the Bible as, simply, inspired. It is fairly simple for these believers to just say the writers of the scriptures erred on occasion, and they were wrong on creation. For these believers, no, there is no issue with their religion and science coexisting. Some of them even make an interesting point. They argue that some people who take the Bible as inerrant and literal are in fact idol worshipers. They worship the Bible over God! However, there is one crucial problem. How, exactly, does one figure out which passage were in fact wrong? It doesn’t seem like everyone is receiving the same message from God on this.